Dont see why we'd do WVU alone. Should add at least 2 other BE teams with them for travel if nothing else.
Yeah, I'd agree. I want Louisville first, then Cinci and WVU if we go to 12.
Dont see why we'd do WVU alone. Should add at least 2 other BE teams with them for travel if nothing else.
nope, me either. adios tiggersIf true, its time to get to 12 or beyond. Sorry Mizzou I will not miss you.
Thing of it is, if we are "weaning" teams into full revenue sharing (TCU only gets 50% next year), how much are we really losing going straight to 12?? We can set it up that they aren't full financial partners until the Tier 1 gets renegotiated and that will minimize the impact to the 9 remaining teams. Whatever gap there is can probably be made up by sharing the A&M + Mizzou exit fees.
I wonder what Pollard and Geoffrey are arguing for?
10 teams to maximize revenue (assuming there isn't a money fall off with only replacing Mizzou with one)
or
12 teams (assuming this means 8 game conference schedule)
Doesn't matter, according to Pollard most of the conference wants 10 teams so that is what we will be stuck with. I think this is horrible for ISU, KSU, KU, TCU, Baylor and Tech. I assume they are all thinking about money, how they are currently playing (not historical I am talking to you KSU, Okie St, KU & Baylor) and that the Big 12 will be perfect going forward. As things stand now, ISU will more than likely be a doormat until some of these powers have coaches retire or ISU gets a few breaks to go their way.
Essentially ISU needs to go 3-0 in non con every year going forward in order to sniff a bowl game.
No thanks to ND without FB as well. That would be a stupid move IMO.
Disagree, they would be great for basketball.